Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Glunk v. Belk Stores Services, 98-1352 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1352 Visitors: 21
Filed: May 27, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1352 MARGARET M. GLUNK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BELK STORES SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-201-3-P) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1352 MARGARET M. GLUNK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BELK STORES SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-201-3-P) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Margaret M. Glunk, Appellant Pro Se. Jacob John Modla, HAYNSWORTH, BALDWIN, JOHNSON & GREAVES, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Margaret Glunk appeals the district court's order granting Belk Store Services' motion for summary judgment on her claims of sexual discrimination, constructive discharge, and violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. ยง 206(d)(1) (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Glunk v. Belk Stores Svcs., Inc., No. Ca-96-201-3-P (W.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer